ABSTRACT
Including the voices and knowledge of service users is essential for developing recovery-oriented and evidence-based mental health services. Recent studies have however, suggested that challenges remain to the legitimization of user knowledge in practice. To further explore such challenges, a co-production study was conducted by a team of researchers and representatives from user organizations in Sweden. The aim of the study was to explore the barriers and facilitators to the legitimacy of user knowledge, as a central factor in sustainably implementing user influence in mental health practice. A series of workshops, with representatives of mental health services and user organizations were conducted by the research team to explore these issues. The analysis built on the theoretical framework of epistemic injustice, and the underlying aspects, testimonial, hermeneutic and participation-based injustice, were utilized as a framework for a deductive analysis. Results suggest that this is a useful model for exploring the complex dynamics related to the legitimacy of user knowledge in mental health systems. The analysis suggests that the legitimacy of user knowledge is related to the representativeness of the knowledge base, the systematic formulation of this knowledge in applicable methods, access to resources and positions within the mental health system and participation in the process of integrating this knowledge-base in mental health contexts. Legitimizing user knowledge in practice additionally challenges mental health systems to support readiness for change in working environments and to address the power and role issues that these changes involve.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Involving service users in inpatient care and recovery planning has gained interest worldwide. Our purpose was to evaluate the process of implementation of a coproduced Recovery Guide (RG) intervention in 22 inpatient wards in Sweden, in terms of context, implementation process and mechanisms of impact over 12 months. METHODS: A mixed method design and a process evaluation framework were used to guide data collection and to deductively analyze perspectives and descriptive statistics of delivery from three stakeholder groups. RESULTS: Results showed that although initial contextual barriers were present (e.g., lack of resources, and interest, uncertainty in the organization, a dominant illness perspective), it was possible to implement the RG in 14 wards, where 53% of admitted service users received the intervention. Legitimacy of the intervention, engaged managers and staff, capacity of staff and ward organization, coproduction and continuous support from user organization were critical mediators. Mechanisms of impact concerned (1) a new perspective on mental health, well-being and recovery, (2) capacity building of a recovery approach in inpatient settings and (3) a meaningful outlet for users' thoughts and feelings on recovery, sharing narratives and influencing care and goals. CONCLUSIONS: The RG intervention has the potential to promote a recovery approach in inpatient mental health services (MHSs). Coproduction among stakeholders created trust and a sustainable implementation that made it possible for wards to resume implementation when contextual barriers had been resolved. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The current study involved stakeholders including a service user organization, the public, first-line managers and staff (including peer support workers) in inpatient and community MHS and researchers, who greatly contributed to the implementation programme, including codesign of the RG intervention as well as coproduction of the implementation in inpatient MHS. All authors have their own lived experiences of mental health problems as a service user or as a relative.
